Imagine discovering that your police force, funded through local taxes, has begun diverting patrols to a neighboring town instead of protecting your own. Most people would be up in arms, and rightfully so.

A similar impulse informs Ron Paul’s foreign policy. He claims our military is off adventuring outside its jurisdiction. It is a message which appeals to a loyal base of supporters who believe that America’s military ought to respond to direct threats against American lives, rather than police the rest of the world.

There is a legitimate argument for refocusing our military, but not as Ron Paul and many of his supporters articulate it. Paul imagines a world where there are no credible threats, and thus nothing worth responding to. He imagines that the Constitution of the United States is binding over the lot of man, regardless of whether they are citizens or foreign enemy combatants. Worst of all, he imagines no cultural distinction motivating the behavior of regimes like Iran’s:

I don’t know of anybody who can militarily threaten [Israel]. They have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody’s gonna touch them…

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a multitude of imams and Islamist fanatics disagree. They don’t value life as Western civilization does. Indeed, they embrace death as a path to salvation. In their hands, a single nuclear weapon is a far greater threat to human life than the 300 held by a nation like Israel, which hopes never to use them.

Paul’s inability to make such an essential distinction has kept his support from rising above a particular ceiling. Yet, what support he has remains impressively stable, indicating that he speaks to some chord within many voters.

Opposite Paul stands Rick Santorum, a candidate who has struck an entirely different chord. Santorum is a proud neoconservative interventionist who believes America has a unique place in the world which endows it with an esoteric duty to spread democracy and freedom. The Hill reports,

Listening to Rick Santorum, one imagines he would lead America to more war, very quickly. Santorum speaks loudly, carries a big stick and speaks with a trigger-happy enthusiasm common to neoconservatives. The winds of war blow from Santorum’s lips with an almost casual air of breathless excitement that virtually guarantees more war if Santorum is elected president.

Listening to Ron Paul, by contrast, there is an isolationism that worries almost all leading national-security strategists, from conventional liberals to conventional conservatives. While Santorum gives the impression he would jump to war quickly, Paul gives the impression he would never wage war under any circumstance.

Both of these candidates miss the mark for the same reason. Both maintain flawed concepts of sovereignty.

120 Comments, 46 Threads

As for “our military is off adventuring outside its jurisdiction,” this is a message that also appeals to common sense unless one considers Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan success stories.

As for Iran, they didn’t seem to embrace death all that much once Ronald Reagan took office; if they were as you and others portray them, they would’ve been immune to such considerations. I don’t think anyone is suggesting a nosejob-obsessed culture that want women locked in rooms is one without distinction, but are asking how we would react to being told we could not attempt to manage our natural geographic sphere of interest, militarily or otherwise. We not only reserve this right for ourselves but stick it into the back yards of others.

It doesn’t seem fair to describe not wanting to get involved in another Viet Nam as “isolationism” and we have devalued our Constitution by extending it out beyond our borders to enable the suicidal transfer of the Third World to America while giving aid to who stays in those countries until our currency is so devalued that a specific and unrenovated hotel in Rio de Janeiro that was $4 in 1988 is now $91.

In regard to “common good” and responsibility to others, I see this as a responsibility to NOT foist off everything or idea that an individual fails at or comes up with onto the general populace. Failed with the father of your children? Forget welfare and the idea of living alone – that is not a right – go back and live with your parents and leave the taxpayer out of it.

You like gay marriage? Too bad, the rest of the country is not obsessed with the peculiar views of gay people. You’re a comic book collector who wants all comics digitized by the Library of Congress? Forget it. You’re a major league baseball player who wants baseball declared the national sport? Forget it. These things are another kind of responsibility: to subvert your specific and narrow self to the greater and common good; doing otherwise has turned us into a bickering Tower of Babel. Shut these people up with some tough love, reality and common sense. We’ve gotten to the point where we consider Mother Nature and Reality as discriminatory and racist.

The sole purpose of gov’t is NOT to protect individual rights from “harm, coercion, and fraud”; this can mean anything to anybody. This means I pay for transexual operations, education for illegal aliens and affirmative action that is racist towards immigrants from only 50 years ago and surprise, look what’s happening. The purpose of gov’t is to protect our opportunities and collective rights and not to ensure equality since our form of gov’t is not about social engineering cheap psychology that empowers the hypocritical bigotry of the Rainbow Coalition.

It seems to me your in-between foreign policy relegates us to being a global version of the East India Company: offering our services, playing one nation against the other and exerting naked force when possible. As for eliminating threats, that implies we always recognize a threat in the first place. That’s why bombing Japan before Pearl Harbor would be ill-advised; turns out Hussein didn’t have 10 aircraft carriers.

Pakistan’s sovereignty was not negated by its actions but by our superior force, just as Palestine’s sovereignty has never existed and Israel’s does; this is not a game that is fair – winner’s write the laws only after subjugation by force. Sovereignty is such a slippery idea you cannot describe it in real terms that truly engage fair play; it is a gun and not an ideal.

The War On Terror can be won but the solution is one we will never take: end all immigration – quarantine these bastards and they sit and fume. We don’t need more people and we already are having trouble effectively governing 300 million people not to mention the appalling effect on our environment and natural resources.

As for war, there is not a single one since WW II the U.S. wouldn’t have been better off NOT engaging in. The right to self-defense is a right invoked when attacked, not yelled at. If we had responded to 9/11 properly we would’ve taken over the Wahabbi Saudis and administered their oil as a mandate to pay for their world wide inspiration of terrorism til it was sucked out of the ground and sent 10 missiles at Sadam for every one fired until he quieted down. We didn’t have to throw ourselves into that cauldron.

I would say “if the people of the world are to learn the value of freedom” let them stay in their own “equal” countries and make a nice place to live without the West holding their hands and the U.S. letting its own cultural sovereignty be undermined as a forced de facto charity, refugee camp and destination of asylum and jobs for the entirety of a failed and backwater Third World. There is isolationism and there is selective isolationism. Get rid of anchor baby laws or any rights for illegal aliens other than the right to turn around and get right back out and having their assets seized to pay for it.

This is a very disappointing, and extremely naive writer Walter Hudson.

First. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan all have SHARIA LAW in each of their constitutions. Thus every one of these countries require, under their constitutional law, that every male, who has reached the age of puberty, must war against all countries that do not have Sharia Law in their constitutions. This is called Jihad and is written into their constitution.

Sharia Law is not a religion. It is a 1400 year old dictator’s wet dream come true. You can legally kill anyone that speaks out against the government.

America has wasted thousands of young soldiers lives and trillions of American Dollars to allow new, bloody, genocidal dictatorships take over these countries. As long as Sharia Law is in their constitutions, it is a bloody dictatorship.

Obama orchestrated the wars in Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia and Syria, with full knowledge that he is turning each of these countries over to the Saudi Dictator’s Control. Obama leaves Sharia Law in each of their constitutions. Obama even went out of his way to help write Sharia Law into the constitution of Kenya, to turn it into a dictatorship.

No we do not need to give Iran to the bloody Saudi Dictator, sacrificing thousands of young Americans lives, and trillions more of American dollars.

Jihad is not a religious fanatic, it is written into their constitutions because they are Dictatorships.

“As for “our military is off adventuring outside its jurisdiction,” this is a message that also appeals to common sense unless one considers Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan success stories.”

.

As a matter of fact the Vietnam War under Pres. Nixon was a success. We won. Then the Democrats in Congress impeached Nixon and overrode Pres. Ford’s veto in January 1975, cutoff promised and necessary military funding for South Vietnam and within months South Vietnam fell to a massive North Vietnamese tank invasion rolling down Highway 1. The Seventh Fleet stood by passively much the way the US military would be inactive under a Ron Paul Presidency.

The Iraq War was a success. We won. Saddam is gone and Iraq has a democracy.

Afghanistan is much more complex than we could have wished because in effect we are fighting the Pakistan Intelligence service. The Afghanistan war has been revealed to be in reality the Pakistan War fought in Afghanistan. We best not loss that one either.

“As for “our military is off adventuring outside its jurisdiction,” this is a message that also appeals to common sense unless one considers Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan success stories.”

.

As a matter of fact the Vietnam War under Pres. Nixon was a success. We won. Then the Democrats in Congress impeached Nixon and overrode Pres. Ford’s veto in January 1975, cutoff promised and necessary military funding for South Vietnam and within months South Vietnam fell to a massive North Vietnamese tank invasion rolling down Highway 1. The Seventh Fleet stood by passively much the way the US military would be inactive under a Ron Paul Presidency.

The Iraq War was a success. We won. Saddam is gone and Iraq has a democracy.

Afghanistan is much more complex than we could have wished because in effect we are fighting the Pakistan Intelligence service. The Afghanistan war has been revealed to be in reality the Pakistan War fought in Afghanistan. We best not loss that one either.

Someone beat me to the point I wanted to make.
What is the purpose of war by the way? Is it not to destroy the enemy? Or is it to go in and kill a few and then rebuild their country with our resources to help them out? Maybe they will be friendlier then?

What did we do to Japan? We helped them after but would never allow them again their own military. It was complete and utter destruction as necessary.

The Islamic fanatics state to this day the purpose is to destroy us and takeover our country. Pretty straight forward. I do not hear many Muslims calling out the fanatics, so they must be under the same impression as the supposed “fanatics”.

Japan actually attacked us. Maybe you missed that. Iran? Does a lot of proxy work; so does the US, or have you missed our forays into Egypt and Libya. Good thing we helped usher out Qaddafi and Mubarak so those nice Muslim Brotherhood boys could take over. Santorum represents everything that is wrong with interventionist thinking: “we will attack you because we know better than you do what is best for you”. When the left uses the same tactic, we condemn it; but some alleged righty uses it and it’s okay? Whatever.

Here’s what the president ought to say: the day after Iran uses a nuclear weapon in a first-strike, pre-emptive, or other non-defensive capacity will be the day it ceases being a country.

This president won’t say that, of course, but haven’t heard those who aspire to his job say it, either. It’s either saber-rattling or nothing, as though the only options are prohibition or alcoholism.

So Alex, are you implying that radical Islamic nations have not attacked us through proxies by stating “Japan actually attacked us”. I guess the World Trade Centers are still there and I am living in an alternate reality? Also all the other attacks and speeches given by the radical Islamic leaders around the globe we are supposed to just say “now don’t be so mean”?

I notice you had to attack a candidate, let me guess, Ron Paul supporter. If you are, you are the reason I quit supporting him. Ron Paul supporters are only a little smarter than Obamabots generally speaking.

Tell me, what is the purpose of supplying the ME with funds by not aggressively acquiring our own resources?

Where in my comment did I support or denigrate any candidate and why did you feel it necessary to bring into the discussion a candidate? Do not bother to respond, fanatics tend to not understand why they put off other people with their fanaticism.

I guess doing business with other countries now is considered to be an attack, right Ron Paul fanatic? I guess doing business with other countries is called imperialism now, right Ron Paul fanatic? Go away fanatic.

Ah, the infinite wisdom of those who puts words into the mouths of others. Santorum has never stated that, “we will attack you because we know better than you do what is best for you.” The period goes on the inside of the quotation marks by the way.

Even the author of the article purposely misquotes him under the photo he used on page 2. He was at least nice enough to give the full quote in the written part of the article though. You cannot stop at, “a responsibility to others,” for that quote. The end of that statement shows the full meaning of his statement, “It was responsibility to your family, but not just your family. It was a responsibility to your neighbors and to your country.” He never says anything about having a responsibility to other countries, otherwise he would have said something like, “a responsibility to your neighbors, to your country, and to our neighboring countries.” But he DIDN’T.

To be frank I would be much happier with a President that was willing to go to war than one who wouldn’t. The fault for all of the wars falls onto the shoulders of Congress, not just the President. WWII was the last war authorized by Congress, the fact they did not cease funding or impeach the offending President is their own dang fault. Even Reagan broke that rule sadly with The Cold War era, no war was officially declared by our sitting members of Congress and so any actions taken were technically illegal.

The fault lies with Congress for forgetting their responsibilities to this nation, just like they have forgotten their responsibility to vote on all federal laws (this includes regulations passed by various agencies enforceable by law). Executive Orders passed by the various Presidents that obviously extend to parties outside of the direct power of the Executive Branch are illegal and should have been overturned by Congress. The Supreme Court would only have jurisdiction to overturn such Orders if the issue was first brought to the courts, they cannot intervene without it.

Gee, Alex, do you happen to recall the incident back in Nov-79, when forces under the control of the Iranian Islamic Republic attacked the United States?
I do, and so do they.
29 Nov 79 marks the beginning of the Iran-US War, it is well past time to bring it to a conclusion, and if 25MM Iranians have to die, so be it!
Hell, if all of them have to, perhaps a lesson will be learned – we can think of it as Carthage-II.

War, in more or less the words of Tom Clancy, is robbery writ large. The purpose of war is to take from them for yourself just as the purpose of a military is to break things and kill people. Do not confuse self defense with war, they are very different phenomena. What is referred to here as ‘total war’ is simply the most intelligent sort of self defense; complete excision of the enemy’s ability to contintue attacks.

Leaders in radical Islamic countries call for the destruction of the west and the our supposed imperialism. Now, what is that imperialism? Doing business with them? The US made the mistake of doing any business with any communist, socialist or Islamic countries. We end up funding the very dregs of the world that call for our annihilation. They infiltrate our country and we fund them, La Raza, eg, and we wonder why our country is on the edge of the cliff.

I think we are missing the big picture, there are enemies within the gate that total war should be redirected at. Hell, they are manning the gate at the moment.

The question is, can total war be fought today? Israel would have no problems if it fought like WWII was fought. But current international law, world opinion, and our (I live in Haifa) stupid left-wing “morality” makes this impossible.

The US might be able to get away from it, as it does not yet answer to anyone, thank Heaven.

Thank you Walter Hudson for a bold articale that states the hard truth.

We can never win this or any war unless:
1) we have the will to name our enemy.
2) we have a true belief in the superiority of our culture and that it is worth fighting for.
3) when we fight, we fight to destroy the military, ideological and socio-economic apparatus of the enemy.

Our current ‘War on Terror’ does none of this.

First, it is not a ‘War on Terror’, but rather a War OF Terror being inflicted upon us by Islam. Islam is the enemy. Not ‘Radical Islam’ or ‘Al-Qaida’ or ‘A Tiny Minority of Extremists’ (as the brilliant Robert Spencer cites). It is Islam, the religion of war, the religion of humanities most evil sociopath, Muhammed.

The conflict is a war on liberty by the forces of Islam. Submission to totalitarian Islam vs. individual liberty. It is dar al-Islam against dar al-Harb. We must have faith and confidence that western civilization is superior to Islamic submission. From my first hand experience I know this to be true. This is nothing less than an existential conflict where there can only be one victor.

What drives this Islamic war, this ISLAMIC WORLD WAR, is the ideology of the Koran, the mandates of Muhammed and the inspiration of Allah. It is the ideology that must be destroyed, otherwise Islam will win.

Islam has the will to name its enemy – us. Islam has belief in the superiority of its culture, however barbaric. Islam has the will to fight and kill and win.

We must expose the truth about the totalitarian ideology of Islam and its supremecist imperialist mandate. We must expose the truth about Muhammed, the 7th century Arabian Hitler who triggered this 1,400 year war. We must try to destroy the ideology of Islam by simply exposing it to the light of truth, before this war escalates.

If, however, Islam persists with its ISLAMIC WORLD WAR, we must make it clear that they will face complete destruction. We must be willing to focus our military efforts on the unholy ‘holy sites’ of Mecca and Medina, the ‘holy’ city of Qom, and all the other ‘Berlins’ of the Islamic Reich. We must be willing to vaporize the Kaaba, as they are willing to vaporize our churches, synagogues, temples and our economic ‘Mecca’ in New York.

If there is no Reichstag, there is no Reich. If there is no Kaaba, there is no Hajj. If there is no Hajj, there is no Islam. There will always be some Muslims, just as there will always be some NAZI’s, but they must be broken. If there is no Islam, there is no ISLAMIC WORLD WAR.

This is how we defeated Hitler. This is how we defeated Imperial Japan. This is why we are still fighting the Korean War – because we didn’t fight to win. We must do this…or Islam will win.

You can name it anyway you want but the most hushed truth is that this is a religious war and has been all along. The Mid East will be World War III and we better have a good president and a good military because it will be Armageddon.

We tried fighting the ww4 on the cheap, why is the terrror sponsoring regime of the Iran stil in businesses? Should have wasted them, the Saudis the Syrians and Hezbollah- marched right to the sea from afghanistan pausing only to drive the Osama hiding pakistanis to the dirt. Bush wimped out and fought the right war the wrong way.

Well, this is one of those rarest of situations, wherein an excellent essay is followed by an equally thought-provoking comment challenging it. I refer to comment #1 by John Sungun.

I suspect Misters Hudson and Sungun would find much to agree upon especially the principles underlying their argument. Wrestling with and reconciling the writers viewpoints is satisfying effort. Thank you both.

How about this: First you commented as ‘John Sungun, then you signed in as Phil Carlson and complimented your first comment.
I tried to read that garbage from John Sungun, but surely it must be coming from a pub with wi-fi.

Touching on different points here and there seems to disorient the easily confused. I’m not surprised it comes off as a drunken rant to you. Perhaps reading one paragraph a day would have a same effect as a pacifier.

This a comment section for the purpose of commenting on the authors piece.
Instead of commenting, you posted an opposing op-ed. Get a blog if you want to write op-eds.
Oh, and don’t skip outlining first, like you did in school.

“We cannot bring civility to the uncivilized, dispense freedom as if it were ours to give, or hasten in tribal hearts and mystic minds the principles and values discovered over centuries of Western Enlightenment. It is neither our duty nor our place. Our duty is protect ourselves, and that means eliminating threats.”

Why don’t you take this argument to its logical conclusion. The problem our politicians and military have today is this fetish for “nation building.” This was and always has been a terrible idea, going back to the war in Vietnam. For some strange reason American politicians always believe that if we sink in enough money, weapons, and training (and American lives) that every nation on this planet can be turned into Iowa. That simply is NOT the case. Afghanistan is the perfect example of that. How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we sunk into that pathetic “country” and what do we have to show for it? A country that has no intention of joining the 17th century, let alone the 21st. This is a backward tribal society and nothing we can say or do will change that. They really only care about their tribes and Islam and we will forever be seen as infidels and outsiders. We will win no victories in places like Afghanistan, no matter how many Taliban fighters we kill.

What our military SHOULD be used for is the actual defense of this nation and for what the British used to call “Punitive Expedition.” During the days of the British Empire, there were times when British forces attacked a country for the simple reason of teaching them a lesson. They were not trying to convert them or convince them that their form of government was the best. All they wanted to do was kill as many of the enemy as possible, make a severe military point, and then leave. Think about how different our experience in Afghanistan would have been if we had simply gone into Afghanistan in 2001, killed (not arrested or put in Guantanamo Bay, but actually killed) as many of al Qaeda and the Taliban as possible, and then simply left, with the warning that if they ever tried anything like 9/11 again, we would incinerate their country. We would have more than avenged the attack of 9/11 and we would have saved billions of dollars and the lives of hudreds of American troops. I firmly believe they would have accepted that message because they would have been convinced that we meant it.

But no, Bush and Obama were positively convinced that this poor excuse of a “country” could be turned into some form of democracy, even though everything they have done in the past 11 years has shown that they cannot. We cannot dispense freedom to countries that have no desire to have it and who simply want to cling to their 14th century standard of living. It is time we get rid of this horrible idea of “nation building.” If we did so, I doubt that the American public would object to very limited forms of military intervention, such as when American hostages are taken by Somali pirates. This is what our military should be used for, the protection of American lives, not as a instrument to turn worthless people into a democracy they do not want.

You strike an important note – the concept of the ‘nation’ of Afghanistan. There is no ‘nation’ of Afghanistan.

The reason this hellhole and every other Islamic country is a rancid geography of human rights abuses, intolerance and violence is because they are not nations in our sense of understanding. They are really one ‘nation’ of Islam, dar al-Islam, which provides the same barbaric scaffolding upon which they hang the same savage cultures.

If we want to change Afghanistan or Pakistan, it starts in Mecca, not Kabul or Karachi.

Destroy the ideology that binds them and the scaffold collapses. Destroy the Kaaba and there is no Hajj. If there is no Hajj, there are no Hajjis. If there are no Hajjis then perhaps Buddhism can return to Afghanistan, and Christianity can return to the ancient middle east, and Judaism can once again thrive, and the Hindus, Baha’i and Sikhs can be liberated. Even the atheists of Europe might have a chance.

This article uses the word “imagine” rather frequently for a reason. I would have hoped a political article by pj media, even if it is opinion, would be based on facts rather than imagination. The only thing “one imagines” these days is a media source without bias. This is journalism at a new low.

If the US had responded to Saddam’s flirting with Al Qaeda by invading, pulling him into the street, shooting him dead, dumping his body in the Tigris and then immediately pulling out, that would have had the majority of the Middle Eastern elite quaking in fear. No one fears the military under the neocons because it’s a police force on steroids used for social welfare–err, nation building–when they have control over it.

Killing Saddam won’t do it. Neither will killing bin Laden. To end this ISLAMIC WORLD WAR, we need to kill Muhammed.

Figuratively of course, as this monster has been dead for 1400 years. But his values and ideas live on…thus, it is the reputation of Muhammed as a ‘holy prophet’ that must be destroyed, and replaced with the truth – that he was a sadistic sociopath just like Hitler, Charles Manson or Pol Pot.

Destroy the messenger, destroy the message. Destroy the message, win the war.

Until the US cuts ties and lays down the law with Saudi Arabia, the major global sponsor of Wahabbi terrorist training schools and Sharia court system, we will not accomplish anything.

Saudi Arabia funds global terrorism, openly and without apology. American presidents since Nixon have kissed the royal Saudi ring, submitting to the will of a Foreign King whom funds terror on a world wide scale.

If we cannot even publicly identify the enemy, Saudi Arabia, how can we expect to ever win the war.

Still Ron Paul makes the most sense especially to those young American soldiers who are asked to risk their lives and their limbs in these useless politically correct wars. Most American wars were senseless; why were we fighting in WWI when it was a quarrel between Queen Victoria’s grandsons? What point was there to the UN led Korean War? Vietnam was a war where our leaders clearly did not want to win but were willing to bring about the deaths of tens of thousands of young men. The present wars in the middle east involve us with neanderthal Islamic cultures who cannot and will not live in the modern world but who will use the weapons of the modern world we give them to kill untold millions of people. Bring Americans home and let the middle east be the middle east.

I see it differently. WWI as you say,was a mistake. It was Wilson’s mistake. In hindsight nothing different could come from a progressive with a messianic vision, hence the attempt to form “The League of Nations”. Nevertheless, Korea and Viet-Nam were the “Hot” part of the “cold” war. Even in these military actions, we had a mess of incompetents running these shows. Democrats and Republicans failed the nation and used our men as cannon fodder. Even though I disagree with you, your opinion forces me to reflect more on these POV.

UN-led? No, the US WAS the UN at that time. What needs to be understood is that Korea and Viet Nam (a noble cause lost in the media, and yes, I grew up expecting to fight in it) were simply parts of WWIII, a proxy way againt the USSR which was finially won by Ronald Reagan. Without attacking directly.

“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a multitude of imams and Islamist fanatics disagree. They don’t value life as Western civilization does.” is as wrong as wrong can be. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the imams value their lives as much as anybody in the West, what they don’t value are the lives of their citizens. The turmoil in the Middle East, and the rest of the world, isn’t about Islam, it’s never been about Islam. It’s about power, it’s always about power. Islam is simply the tool of choice used by the imams to acquire and hold power. Remember that the “terror movement” was orchestrated by the Soviet Union as a proxy war against the West.

Before you tell me that I’m wrong, consider the two national religions of the United States: The Pro-Choice Religion and the Pro-Life Religion. The high priests of each religion are politicians who promise to do various things if only you grant them power. You grant them power and nothing happens. Well, they say, you just need to give them more power. You give them more power and nothing happens. The secret is that nothing is intended to happen except that they, the high priests of both religions, get all of the power. You’ll also note that some high priests change their “deeply held religious views” as often as they change their socks.

The same holds true for Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba and all of the other totalitarian states. They each have, or had, a national “religion” that concentrates power in the hands of a few high priests. It’s foolhardy to appeal to the “hearts and minds” because the only ones that matter are those at the top and they’re focused on acquiring more power. The minions are just fools, they may well be dangerous fools, but it’s still a useless exercise to engage in humanitarian outreach because the fools aren’t making the decisions.

If you want to change the dynamic then you have to change those at the top and you do that it two ways. First, you can remove the high priests. Either kill them or buy them off. Recall that Gaddafi stopped when he understood that *his* life was in danger. Second, you can kill enough of the foot soldiers that the population removes those at the top themselves. But half-baked “containment plans”, “surgical strikes” and “proportional responses” won’t get the job done. You need WWII-era carpet bombing with the attendant mass destruction and mass casualties. If you’re not willing to attack the true threat to the realm then you shouldn’t engage, if you’re too “civilized” to destroy the horde of human shields then just surrender the Sudetenland and call it a day. And, frankly, if you don’t understand that it’s foolish in the extreme to value the lives of those who are seeking to do you harm more than their leaders do then you shouldn’t be allowed to hold power.

It’s difficult to view the WOT as (a) anything but an abject failure and (b) a very successful exercise by the high priests to grab more power. When you’re stealing liberty and suppressing freedom then mutually exclusive objectives aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

[i}is as wrong as wrong can be. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the imams value their lives as much as anybody in the West.[/i]

.

And you know this how? Why presume that the men ruling Iran are modern men like you or I? It seems that they are more likely to be non-rational players who are more akin to pee-modern men with a strong eschatological sense of sacred. Someone like Bar Kokhba or the Sicarii at Massada just will not behave in accord with your modern secular sensibilities.

What does Shimon Bar Kosiva have to do with anything? The Jews were pushed to the wall by the Romans, revolted, and darn near defeated the entire Roman empire. The Romans won by pulling a general out of Britain (!) and attacking the civilians in the area.

What does Simon Bar Kokhba have to do with what “#13. Chris” is talking about?

A lot.

The Islamofascist men ruling Iran are NOT modern men like you, Chris or I. They are more likely to be non-rational players who are more akin to pre-modern men of Antiquity living in an intensely sacralized world with a strong eschatological sense. The Islamofascist men ruling Iran are much more like Simon Bar Kokhba or the Sicarii at Massada. Like Simon Bar Kokhba and the Sicarii at Massada they just will not behave in accord with our modern secular sensibilities. It is dangerous to argue and plan, as #13 Chris does above, as if they will behave in accord with our modern secular sensibilities.

Completely O/T, I just picked this thread ‘cuz it happens to be the header at this moment.

I want to apologize to everyone on PJM for the tone of my comments over the past few days, which were sarcastic, caustic, and insulting. I have been in a lousy mood and am enormously frustrated with the MSM and the Left in general (and this Administration-from-hell) and the whole Newt vs Mitt thing has gotten me frothing at the mouth. So, anyone to whom I posted a nasty reply, please accept my apology. I’m taking a time out, but will be back in a few weeks to stomp on anyone who disagrees with me (in a civil manner, of course).

If we pull out of Afghanistan how long until the Taliban retake it? How long until they from a new alliance with Al Queda or its replacement and once again use their safe haven to plan and project terrorist atttacks?

The analogy with WWII overlook the new trend in modern war. War of civilians against civilians.

Outlaw the pracitce of Islam in the free world. Deport Islamic protestors. If Islamic countries won’t take them back the Marines can put them ashore. After all Spain kicked them out in 1492 and the world did not come to an end.

When Islam is confined it cannot support itself. Islam needs to loot from others to survive. This will force Islam to reform or it will starve. I think this is the lesser evil compared to total war.

jimmy,
Banning any religion pretty much means you are not part of the free world; it is exactly what certain Muslim backwaters do. Besides, this country has tried banning lots of things; it never works. I have no issue with deporting radicals and rabble-rousers or with cutting off foreign aid, though I would extend that cut off to ALL countries. We’re not the world’s social services dept. Supporting allies is one thing; underwriting them is a luxury we cannot afford.

I don’t view Islam as bonified religion. It is a radical economic/political/cult that justifies bad behavior against anything that Islam disagrees with. Islam itself justifies lying to further it’s cause, therefore, the true believers can’t be trusted at their word. And quite frankly we can’t tell the sheep from the goats anyway. We don’t have to let them use our Constitution and freedoms destroy us. Islam is what it is. If only our political leaders would man up and face this fact, ID the enemy and legislate against the enemy in our midst.

You have it right on the money: without immigration into the politically correct West where Islam is a viper actually held to and protected by a Constitutional breast, it has nothing at all to harm us with and cannot export its “faith.” We are too stupid to quarantine them, preferring cultural suicide to being called racist. Meanwhile the NAACP gives out the Image Award based solely on race while calling others who do no such thing racist. The acceptance of that level of delusion, racial hypocrisy together with non-existent Islamophobia and our friends La Raza will destroy America.

“What he failed to recognize was that a nation-state may only command respect if it upholds the rights of its citizens and does not encroach upon its neighbors. Pakistani sovereignty was negated by harboring the mastermind of attacks upon the United States.”

So, if some international criminal was found to be living in the US, foreign special forces can operate within our borders without notifying the US government? That is really what you are arguing for?

Observe the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire fell when it was so morally and economically debased that it had not the strength to resist when the very real threat of the barbarians closed in around it. Rome could not simply choose not to fight the enemies on its borders, because they certainly intended to pick a fight with Rome.

Rome was morally debased?
That would be by its state religion at the time I take it.
Said religion being, what was it now . . . oh yes, Christianity.
Are you sure about that?

Rome was economically debased?
Because it could no longer pay several thousand pounds of gold every year to the Germanic Tribes not to attack it?
Or because it could no longer pay several thousand pounds of gold every year to the Germanic mercenaries to protect it?
Perhaps it is me, but a country that can dump several thousand pounds of gold every year for one sort of defense program or other seems to be doing rather well economically.

Maybe Rome fell because the political disorder caused by competition to be Emperor made resisting invasion more difficult.
And of course that requires a caveat that virtually all of the invaders were more interested in becoming Romans, or at least sanctioned Roman clients, than they were in merely destroying Rome – they wanted to play the game to be Emperor or reasonable facsimile thereof themselves.

Rome fell because of immigration: 60% citizen army at its height, 1% at the end. Look at a map; the Italian peninsula is one of the most easily defended in the world. It wasn’t really invaded from without, those armies from the North simply marched into a vacuum enabled by their own people. Rome’s great virtue was organization but by the end those people were simply gone. What remained had retreated into a walled city called Byzantium even more easily defended though the terrain was not. That Eastern Roman Empire was a stop gap that added a few centuries of life.

And yet all those Germanic peoples still wanted to be Romans, and except for the Franks who decided they wanted to be Romans later on, they did their best to become Romans, including fighting and dying for Rome against various invaders.

And yet Italy was still invaded from the north, as well as from the sea, just as it was when Brennus sacked Rome with his Gauls, and just as when Hannibal invaded though he was defeated by a particular tactic.
It seems the Italian peninsula is not so easily defended after all.

Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the official state religion of the Empire at the end of the 4th Century AD. The Roman Empire began to come apart during reign of Emperor Nero in the 7th decade of the 1st Century AD before much of the New Testament was even written.

Centuries of wars of imperial succession made it dangerous for an Emperor seated in the City of Rome to invest a successful general at the frontier with substantial military resources lest that general follow Caesar’s example and Cross the Rubicon to take the throne for himself. The Emperors came to rely upon defense in depth out of enlighten ‘dynastic’ self interest.

Tolerance became official in 313.
The first Christian Emperor seized the throne in 323.
The Western Empire officially ended in 476.
That’s over a century of Christian “moral debasement” to handwave away so casually.

Likewise the Empire expanded rather significantly after Nero, making blaming him for the start of any sort of decay highly questionable at the least.

No, Rome was morally debased by pagans who spent three hundred years waging on and off persecutions against Christians while choosing ever more violent forms of entertainment and ever higher welfare distributions. By the time the Christians came to power, too many Romans were not interested in working or reproducing, and the Christians had no love lost for the State, either. If Rome hadn’t spent so many of its resources killing its most productive citizens and subjects, maybe the Empire wouldn’t have fallen. As it is, Constantinople stood for another 1000 years after the fall of Rome. Rome deserved its fate, no argument there, but I was making the case that we have much to learn to avoid the same fate.

And yet as noted, the Christians ultimately won.
Perhaps you do not know but Gibbon originally blamed the moral failure of the Western Empire on the enervating effect of Christianity out of anti-Catholic sentiment. Perhaps you might want to reconsider citing a moral cause in such a case.
Of course I am not a Christian, so it certainly won’t insult me if you want to blame them.

As for having much to learn, yes we do, but we must understand the actual lessons first.

You respond to me and wrote: “Tolerance became official in 313.
The first Christian Emperor seized the throne in 323.
The Western Empire officially ended in 476.
That’s over a century of Christian “moral debasement” to handwave away so casually.”

Likewise the Empire expanded rather significantly after Nero, making blaming him for the start of any sort of decay highly questionable at the least.

.

Constantine the Great, also known as Constantine I, was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337. At Constantine’s initiative, Constantine and co-Emperor Licinius issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed religious tolerance of all religions throughout the empire.

Constantine reunified Imperial rule in 323 after centuries of destructive and exhausting dynastic struggle between emperors, co-emperors and junior emperors at the frontiers.

In the early 4th Century Christians comprised around 1/3 of the population in the Eastern Empire but 10% or less in the West. The suggestion that “Christian moral debasement” caused the fall of the Western Empire is shear nonsense.

Constantine was not only able to unify the Empire which had experienced instability and loss of control of major portions on the Western Empire, such as the The Gallic Empire in the 3rd century, but Constantine was able to to expand the Empire. Mind you the Eastern more Christian portion of the Empire succumbed to jihad during the reign of Greek Catholic Emperor Constantine XI in the 15th century AD. You would do do well to throw your copy of Edward Gibbon’s polemic in the trash if you want to understand the Fall of Rome.

Moreover I didn’t blame Nero, instead I wrote “The Roman Empire began to come apart during reign of Emperor Nero in the 7th decade of the 1st Century AD before much of the New Testament was even written.” The pagan Roman Empire more or less stopped expanding after the The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in the 1st decade of the 1st century AD. The Empire barely survived internal existential threats begin during Nero’s reign but also in the 2nd and 4th decades of the 2nd century AD and thereafter.

Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is more like calling your neighbor a jerk because when your family was being destroyed by a home invasion he turned up the volume on his TV because the screams of pain and cries for help were bothering him, and afterwards he says it was your fault anyway for not having enough guns and killing them while they were on your lawn, not to mention you shouldn’t have bought that house anyway because it is practically in their neighborhood, and you also fought off that mugger last week who lives next door to some of the gang members.

The terrorists must be feel pretty good. They have gone toe to toe with the strongest military in the world. Think about that for a second, a bunch of desert rats have withstood 10 years of American might. If this is not a recruiting tool, I don’t know what is. Osama attacked the trade towers to taunt us into Afghanistan. His goal was to bankrupt America the same way he collapsed the Soviet Union. If we continue spending he may yet achieve this goal.

“The terrorists must be feel pretty good. They have gone toe to toe with the strongest military in the world.”

.

Our military has decimated the enemy on all GWoT battlefields since 9/11. Our weakness however remains the same as it was during the Vietnam War. Our Progressive-Left has again ruthlessly undermined support for our war effort so it could ride the resulting anti-war sentiment to power.

“Paul imagines a world where there are no credible threats, and thus nothing worth responding to. He imagines that the Constitution of the United States is binding over the lot of man, regardless of whether they are citizens or foreign enemy combatants”

So it appears that the obnoxious “strawman technique”, perfected by Obama and the Democrats, has found its way into PJMedia. I think every rational person including Ron Paul understands that credible threats can arise outside of our borders and that sometimes preemption is a necessary form of self defense.

I am glad you noticed as well, Mike. It seems building up the most technically advanced military in the world and having it ready to protect our country and allies is not enough? Soooooo….Ron Paul should lie to the American people? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand our economy is going to have to change direction fast and putting our dwindling money into science and military advancement while keeping out of expensive wars that can’t be won is wrong how?Surely people realise it is just a matter of time with our open borders until we face another national crisis at home????

Christ’s admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves is viewed as “dangerous,” “unsafe,” and “reckless,”

Which would be fine, if other countries (Russia in Georgia, China in Taiwan and the South China Sea, Iran in Bahrain, arguably the EU in Libya) followed the same rule. Not to say we should attack every country that looks at us funny, or that we’re not overstretched, or that we are financially solvent, but, at the same time, we can’t disengage from the world as we did after WWI and leave the running of the world to autocrats and fascists.

Thank you, Mr. Hudson, for a remarkably astute and comprehensive article. It is rare to see such a wide and deep philosophical grounding (i.e. the fundamental moral principle: individual rights) stated so explicitly in today’s political discourse.

I agree Mr. O’Brien. It seems that Mr. Hudson given us a straw man. Rick Santorum is certainly not the ‘opposite’ of Ron Paul. It is far more likely the Rick Santorum’s Catholic Just War sensibilities would resist a rush to war.

Rick Santorum responsibly warns us that war may very likely ready come upon us whether we like it or not.

Funny. I can see no historical evidence that war does any good for anyone in a human kind of way. Tangibly, war is good, more land or more oil or more any other resource for the victor. And who cares what the defeated feels or now has to go through to just survive.And lets introduce democracy or shoot them. And none of it will come back and bite the victor in the back side.

Ya war is wonderful as long as there are young men to send off to be killed.

“Funny. I can see no historical evidence that war does any good for anyone in a human kind of way. Tangibly, war is good, more land or more oil or more any other resource for the victor. And who cares what the defeated feels or now has to go through to just survive.And lets introduce democracy or shoot them. And none of it will come back and bite the victor in the back side.

Ya war is wonderful as long as there are young men to send off to be killed.”
”

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Some wars (not all) do have benefits for hummanity.
WWII: Liberation of Europe, end of the genocidal policies of Adolf Hitler, end of imperialist Japan and their atrocities on mainland asia (ie The Rape of Nanking)

Korean War: Protection of South Korea from the horrors of communist North Korea. In essence saving millions from tyranical subjugation.

American War for Independence (Revolutionary War) and the War of 1812: Resulted in the creation and defense of the United States, which I consider a good thing.

Siege of Vienna 1529: Defeat of the Ottoman empire and their muslim expansion into central Europe.

Battle of Poitiers/Tours 732ad: Stopped muslim expansion from recently conquered Spain. Again, I believe that this was a good thing for humanity.

Battle of Salamis: Stopped the Persian Empire and led to the Greek victory at Platea ushering in the golden age of Athens which gave us concepts like democracy and great thinkers like Socrates and Plato.

These are just a few examples of true Casus Belli and wars that led to the improvement of humanity. I also think that Iraq is a better place since the removal of Saddam Hussein, but as an Iraq War vet I know that I am biased.

Hey!…..What ever happened to the North Korea Nuclear capability the United States was so down on…..We don’t hear any more on the N. Korea nuke issue…..What happened…..All of a sudden it is now those bad Iranians wanting nuclear capability…..Bad Iranians!….Bad Iranians!….Do the N. Koreans now have the capability that we once so whole heartedly detested….Or did Communist China tell the US to get off the N. Korea Nuclear kick because if we don’t the Chinese Commies won’t lend us any more money…..Damn…..What would we do with out the big loans the Chinese so gratiously give us?…..We can not survive without the Chinese Communist and their money!….”When will They ever Learn”?….Peter, Paul and Mary.

“Do the N. Koreans now have the capability that we once so whole heartedly detested…”

Yes they do thanks to former President Carter. Pres. Bush had a handle on keeping that problem under control but once the Nork’s got nukes it put nuclear weapons 20 or so miles away from one of the most important financial and industrial cities in the world: Seoul. An attack on Seoul would drive the world into a second Great Depression. That ‘kinda’ puts POTUS in a bind wouldn’t you think. Say how is the new kid doing now that his Administration has place the Muslim Brotherhood, AQ and other Islamic hardliners in power in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt?

Mr.Walter Hudson go back into the hole you crawled out of and stop pushing that Moderate Drivel as if because you say it, it has creedence. What you don’t seem to get moron, is that we do not want to continue to war upon other nations simply for OIL and resources. We have had no credible threat to our nation other than our southern border. What you idiots seem to forget is that more people die in hospitals every year from bad diagnosis and wrong prescriptions and botched operations than we have lost due to “Outside” terrorist threats or actions in 100 years.
Idiots like you need to get an education on what is really going on in this nation instead of spouting pure BS. You pompous ass !!!

Only by the TV media agenda echo drivel such as you infer will no true patriot win. By your own prediction just where does such a result leave you? Have you yet composed an epitaph for your tomb stone explaining your uninformed opinion to your progeny? You may deserve what you’re asking for but they don’t.

According to the BBC, there have been 45,000 deaths in the Mexican drug war in the last 5 years. That outdoes anything in the Middle East in the last 10 years by far period.

Then add in murder in America from drug gangs. To our gov’t, there is death and death and our eyes are pointed in the wrong direction. There should be a 5 mile deep swath of land mines along the entire Mexican border. For once, forgetting where they are would be a boon.

And here I thought PJ-TV and PJ-Media was different than the MSM. Obviously not by the tenor of the argument put forth by Mr. Walter Hudson. This article is just full of “Moderate” drivel, not worthy of my continued subscription. It would take me a full page to express my disgust for idiots such as him and his apparent ignorance about the workings of government and the corruption rampant within our own !!!

“And here I thought PJ-TV and PJ-Media was different”—– Wrong again!
“This article is just full of “Moderate” drivel,” Really? You have a skewed sense of reality to suggest total elimination of a given enemy is moderate.
“not worthy of my continued subscription.” I concur this is obviously beneath your intellectual plane. There is an ‘unsubscribe nearby.

Only by the TV media agenda echo drivel such as you infer will no true patriot win. By your own prediction just where does such a result leave you? Have you yet composed an epitaph for your tomb stone explaining your uninformed opinion to your progeny? You may deserve what you’re asking for but they don’t.

You describe a savior not a patriot.
You make a Paul presidency sound like a last chance gas stop.
If correcting the course of this country can be done by a single patriot, this isn’t America anymore.
Besides the idea that one guy will come in and save the day is, well, absurd.

REPEALS LAWS OF NATURE
Libertarian foreign policy is odd. Foreign relations is based on geography and according to the laws of physics. It is always there even when not noticed.

In viewing foreign relations, it is as if Libertarians have turned their analytical powers off, which worked so well in economics issues. We had two presidents carry out Libertarian foreign policy, which was a tradition by the 20th Century. Consider US Army size at start of: Civil War, 16,000; WWI, 98000 (involved in Haiti & Philippines); 175,000 when WWII started (Portugal had more troops than that); around 500K when North Korea invaded S. Korea.

President Wilson and the Congress followed Libertarian military expenditure and foreign policy in an excellent manner, actually accomplishing demilitarization during the European war. Military chiefs had advocated development of torpedo planes and (in 1905) armored vehicles carrying guns. President Wilson put an end to all that nonsense and ensured that US military aircraft became “a magnificent retrospective museum.”

Receiving the Zimmerman Telegram, President Wilson asked for a declaration of war. In France, US forces used foreign military equipment and did a lot of human wave attacks against machine-guns. Historians tussle over whether US pieces of military equipment got into combat.

US performance in WWI solidly established the myth that US productive capacity was not much and what there was would take many years to come on line. The size and potential of the US thus vanished as a future deterrent. This actually was an illusion requiring plodding examination of all factors to see what was what in WWI. Then one would find little grains of fact such as that the French 155mm long gun (Grand Puissance or something) had forgings made and rough finished in the US and then was shipped to France for final finish and assembly. Or that the US provided all the poison gas for the Allies. In 1919 the US would have fielded tank armies and hundreds of heavy bombers, the latter having 2-way voice radios. But the Japanese and Germans were full of deductive reasoning. They saw US forces arriving with US trucks and uniforms and vegetables, carrying a British rifle and everything else military was European and that was their answer. Deductive reasoning in foreign relations can be suicidal, as the thieving nations found out in the 1940s.

The Versailles Treaty limited the German Army to a sort of Graustark size, too small to wage war. The President and the Congress in the 1920s limited the US Army to a size about 30% larger than that, but then the US had commitments in the Philippines, Panama, and Haiti, as well as being all over in CONUS. What Versailles did to the German military, the Congress and the President did to the US military.

When Japan trumped British (and US) control of the Strait of Malacca, FDR went to the conference table with 2-fisted, table-pounding negotiation, rather than surrender control of the Indian and a lot of the Pacific to Japan, including items in the US Commonwealth. The less conflictive approach would have been to cede the territories of interest to Japan and continue negotiations to achieve Japan’s satisfaction. FDR and the Congress had followed Libertarian military expenditure. Gov. had not wasted spending on armored vehicles; horses had better mobility and reproduced. The WWI equipment in storage still had a lot of use in it. We had the capacity to make only handfuls of military aircraft, except for the slow, 2-engine B-18 bomber as we had just made 350 of them (the B-17 was too expensive to purchase and had been rejected). We even applied Libertarian principles in the field of Intelligence. The result was Pearl Harbor.

Actually it was only an accident of technology that the carrier damaged in the Coral Sea battle could be repaired and go to fight at Midway so we would have two carriers there instead of one. Hand-held spot-welding machines which could weld threaded studs into steel plate had just been developed. The deck boards with holes drilled were put on the new deck plates and guys welded studs through the holes and others bolted them down, something that took hours instead of many days of drilling holes through the deck and bolting studs to the deck. US performance at Midway was aided by the extravagance of US carriers having two deck elevators instead of one for moving planes.

In the situation of Japanese trumping of the Strait of Malacca, would Ron Paul have withdrawn forces from the Philippines and Hawaii and negotiated with Japan the ceding of the Philippines, Guam, and Midway to Japan, and making Hawaii a joint occupation area? We know what would have happened if he did forthright negotiations. Other possibilities are not in his operating system.

For Libertarian foreign policy to acquire a leg to stand on, it needs to explain why it did not work during the period 1900-1950.

People don’t want to admit and I hate to admit it, too, but the USA has been run by War Mongers for quite a while. They don’t have any real allegiance to the USA. It’s just convenient to skim off billions (trillions?) of dollars from the “system” and get richer.
The “banksters” have backed BOTH sides of pretty much all wars. They get both countries indebted to them and thus OWN the rulers of BOTH countries.

Santorum will take us to WWIII by his wish to bomb Iran (even though Israel even says that Iran doesn’t have nuke bombs). Paul is right about the constitution saying nowhere that we are to “protect the world” (which is just a game the “leaders” play) and spend our money and lives to do that.

Let me clue you in: The USA hasn’t gone to war for 68 yrs.
How to know the difference between war and sending troops to foreign countries to exchange fire: In war there is no such thing as civilians, just the enemy.
What you call warmongers , I call impotent self serving eunuchs (with zero interest in national security).

The US Army had to use total war to defeat the Comanches and Kiowas. Fortified supply dumps on the High Plains. Moving at night. Capturing and destroying their huge horse herd. Torturing their Mexican arms supplier to reveal their hideout in Palo Duro Canyon. Of course, Colonel McKensie knew his enemy, knew how dangerous he was. Our leaders are as foolish as Custer and good people will die again.

It’s true that outside entities make lots of money off of war and have for a long time. Read about 16th European wars and you’ll find kings and princes and dukes constantly in debt to fight them. When Cortes was fighting the Aztec empire, the occasional ship appeared off of Villa Rica with cross-bows, horses, armor and other sundries, all sold at ruinous prices.Gun running has been endemic in history. War is profitable.

this is an interesting topic;knowledge of the federalist papers,and writers of the constitution would have been insightful;in their writings they spoke of the freedoms for this nation in the founding documents,which they believed were framed in God;they also feared of a non-godly element taking license with this freedom to morally bankrupt this country…what say you,were they right?

An outstanding article but I do think some of you mistake our nation established by God through men of wisdom that he placed in a position and location for them to accomplish the establishment of the greatest nation the world has ever known are mistaken about what kind of government this nation was established with.

I am verily troubled as I read and listen to those who profess that this nation’s federal and state governments are democracies. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Even though we are moving toward a democracy form of government and are almost there at such a pace that it is scary the 13 original states and the Union they formed was not founded as a democracy. It was established with a free Republic form of government. The electorate is solid evidence that our form of government which the constitution directs the federal government to guarantee to its people and each individual state, the right to a form of free government.

There is no doubt in my mind that the voters in the early 1900′s were talk into following the progressive socialists jlike unto 3 of the candidates for the GOP nomination, namely Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. If one actually listens to these folks they can not miss the main message they deliver which is as much for big government as the present occupant of the white house and those individuals in history who have brought us to this point.

There is no doubt that our federal government has gone far beyond the bounds of their constitutional authority taking control of those actions reserved to the SOVEREIGN individual nation states, The constitution was supposed to protect those 13 nations which have developed into 50 nation states. Unfortunately those particular progressive socialists such as Ted Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D Roosevelt was not even the beginning of the movement to take away from the people the right to govern themselves and turn it over to an uncontrollable federal central government who has usurped authority from those nation states. Sadly this is our situation today and if we desire to restore true freedom to we the people we need to elect one who is willing to work in bringing this about and it isn’t the Candidates who seem to think these folks in history is their political heros by following their works in our day.

Listening to Newt over the last few months he is a progressive socialist who’s hero is Teddy Roosevelt. Woodrow Wilson, whom he most desires to emulate.

Even many of those individual SOVEREIGN nation states have been invaded by the feds who are attempting to control them individually though the Judicial arm of the federal government.

Do not misunderstand, we need a federal government but must keep it in line with the constitutional authority given it in the constitution.

War is a constant, perpetual, only the dead know pointless peace. So I presume your selection for president to avoid your false choice of perpetual pointless war rather than enjoy a living peace is either Obama or Obama light, that is chicken hawk Romney? The “man” for all seasons, and whatever passes for political expediency, Romney could have participated in a hot war against godless communists during the “cold war” peace, but he sat it out with an exemption, roughing it with immunity as a mormon missionary in secular France. Though recently having retrograde warmongering verbal episodes, moderate Trump managed to get immunity from that war too when a young jock. Since Americans are no more exceptional than the Japanese or Germans, your position, states that would have nuked Americans if the tables were turned in WW2, I suggest Americans be aholes like everyone else and we nuke our enemies first, or do the functional equivalent. Total war, it’s the only way to go, because in that way the Romneys and Trumps and Obamas are forced to have some skin in the game too. In war the winners are exceptional, the dead are the norm.

An absolutely brilliant article that highlights why the Republican primary choices are such p-poor choices (but still better than Obama). As far as it goes it only covers the extreme differences between Sanatorium and Paul but it’s still enlightening. Extreme social statism and endless wars vs freedom at home (for now) while naively bending over with our pants down and trusting that no one will take advantage because we’re so sure that everyone shares our values.

While it doesn’t directly address the other two neocons – Romney is too timid and squishy to make the choices necessary to protect personal freedom and reduce government, and he lacks the stomach for hard hit’em-back defense choices. Meanwhile Gingrich can’t figure out from minute to minute if he’s a Santorumite social totalitarian channeling a lite version of Barack Obama’s big government statism, or an Obamaite big government statist channeling Santorum’s social totalitarianism, or a marriage of the two in drag as Ronald Reagan.

I agree wholeheartedly with the author that the answer is a Ron Paul domestic freedom agenda with a far less naive but still completely non-interventionist foreign policy. The key is both understanding that not everyone shares our values and backing our non-interventionist policy with a total war doctrine. In other words we won’t mess with you or your country, or your international trade, or your internal affairs – we’ll leave you alone. But if you attack us or fund or grant asylum to those that do us violence we will utterly and completely destroy you and there will be no !@#$% rules of engagement, no nation building and no endless peacekeeping – you and everyone you know will just be dead and we’ll be back home in time for supper.

Do the readers really believe the Iranians are dedicated to our destruction? They all want to commit suicide so they can romp with 72 virgins? Hmm, this picture doesn’t match with the Persians I’ve known. It doesn’t fit with the history I’ve read about Persia. Admittedly that is only a few books.

Why don’t the Russians fear their neighbors as we seem to? Why no panic in India, China or Turkey, all within easy missile distance? Do they also hate this life?

Have those who are eager for war against Iran thought about the potential blow back?

I don’t like the Iranian government and would not mind seeing their current leaders strung up on telephone poles. If you claim they are an existential threat to the United States please show strong evidence.

Lastly, the nuclear genii is out of the bottle. Pakistan has these weapons for crying out loud. We should focus on defense against these attacks, rather than preventing their development in distant bunkers hundreds of feet below ground. For now, we have little to fear from Iranian nukes and we have plenty of time to prepare for their possible threat in the next one hundred years, or more. Iran is a relatively backward country and nuclear efforts are likely to bankrupt the nation. They lack an industrial infrastructure.

“We should focus on defense against these attacks, rather than preventing their development in distant bunkers hundreds of feet below ground. For now, we have little to fear from Iranian nukes and we have plenty of time to prepare for their possible threat in the next one hundred years, or more. Iran is a relatively backward country and nuclear efforts are likely to bankrupt the nation. They lack an industrial infrastructure.”

.

Iran seems to be developing electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons technology. We won’t have a century to stop a sea launched EMP attack. We’ll have minutes. If Iran succeeds in launching an EMP attack against us, WE will lack an industrial infrastructure. After several months will will also lack most of our population.

It is not Iran specifically that threatens us, but rather Islam. Iran is just a vassal state subjugated to the greater Islamic Ummah. It is just a part of the Islamic axis as was Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and Vichy France to Hitlers Third Reich.

The enemy is Islam. As the Islamist prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, so infamously quoted “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers….”

Turkey. Iran. Iraq. Saudi Arabia. Somalia. Egypt. Libya. Afghanistan. These are the Axis nations of the ISLAMIC WORLD WAR, bound together by Muhammed’s Islamic Jihad theology and dedicated to the Islamic conquest of the entire world.

It is inspired by Allah, mandated by Muhammed and commanded in the Koran.

In these kinds of questions, it is all about the probability of false negative versus false positive errors and the calculation of which error the country is willing to live with.

If we bomb Iran and destroy what appears to be their nuclear bomb building installation, there will be some very negative consequences–oil price through the roof & a recession for instance. For the sake of argument let’s say there is a 90% chance that they never would use that capability against us–that’s probably high, but lets use it for the sake of this argument. That means there is a 90% chance we will made an error in unnecessarily bombing the Iranian facility and this error will bring about some moderately bad results. In other words, high possibility of error resulting in relatively bad results.

But now weigh the 90% probability of a false negative error with a 10% chance of a false negative error–that is to say, if we don’t bomb the facility and the produce a bomb, there is a 10% chance they would use it against us. The consequences of this error, are, I think we can all agree–catastrophic. So, if you are the leader of the free world, which error are you willing to live with. The first, high probable error, but you know most everyone will live to see the country pull out of the recession, or the 2nd low probable error, but if you a wrong, millions die, and the country’s future is in serious doubt.

This is likely the argument used in the invasion of Iraq, but of course, no one ever tried to explain it that way. The sharp-edged military leaders probably thought it couldn’t be explained–they may have not even tried to explain it the Bush–Cheaney, yes he could understand, I am not sure about Bush.

“For the sake of argument let’s say there is a 90% chance that they never would use that capability against us–that’s probably high…”

.

The other side of that 90% assumption is 10% probability of use. If Iranian nukes are used against us the damage is quite likely to be catastrophic. Moreover even within your 90% presumption of non-use there is a high likelihood of direct and/or indirect use against our interests and our allies. The consequences of direct and/or indirect Iran use nuclear weapons against our interests and our allies likely ranges from quite undesirable to catastrophic.

You’ve heard of course that if we don’t learn from history, we’re destined to repeat.

Well, folks, we haven’t learned from history. At least, the federal government hasn’t.

I figure 2012 is about the equivalent of 1938. We’re less than four years away from a surprise attack, but this time, instead of thousands being killed at Pearl Harbor, millions will be killed in the continental United States.

I can see so many of you roll your eyes at this comment. As well as the stunned looks on your faces when the bombs start exploding.

I’m sorry, but we need to stop wetting our pants over the threat of muslims.

This country really needs to grow up – we’re in fear of our lives over a culture that is darn near neolithic.

And what’s more, what country hid the mastermind of 9/11? Was it Iran? Why, no, it was Pakistan, who already has nuked. So why didn’t they give those to Osama? Why won’t they give those to future Osamas? Why the hyperventilating over Iran and not Pakistan?

That’s probably what the fine citizens of Byzantium, the wealthiest, most powerful civilization of the middle ages were saying shortly before their capitol Constantinople was invaded and the great cathedral of St. Sophia was turned into a grand mosque.

History is replete with examples of great advanced civilizations falling to more primitive barbaric ones. So, yes, we do need to fear Islam if we give a damn about our own civilization.

I rather think that by the 11th century the Byzantines came to understand the genocidal threat posed by jihad, something much of our elite seems incapable of apprehending ten centuries later.

But what moves educated Americans, much less conservatives, to write such dismissive mocking tripe as “I’m sorry, but we need to stop wetting our pants over the threat of muslims. This country really needs to grow up.”

Over a span of fourteen centuries that ‘darn near neolithic” institution of Islamic jihad may well have taken 270,000,000 lives. And mind you the “darn near neolithic” society in Pakistan has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and the “darn near neolithic” Iranian jihadists may be as little as a year or so away from obtaining the same. To make matters worse the “darn near neolithic” Iranians have developed 3rd stage ballistic launch capability!

The Taliban from whose territory we were struck on 9/11 was pretty much a creature of the Pakistan’s hardline Islamic intelligence service, the same hardline Islamic intelligence service that obviously gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and the same hardline Islamic intelligence service that orchestrates jihad terror attacks against India.

[sarc]Yes, we have little to fear from those “the darn near neolithic” antagonists![/sacr]

Good comments! Some people simply refuse to acknowledge the truth…out of fear, ignorance or politically correct willful denial…but every day more and more, like you and me and others, are coming to an understanding of this reality.

Ron Paul must be recognized for his own particular brilliance, but he is wrong about his utopian ideals of foreign relations. As others have pointed out, the Barbary Wars, the United States first foreign wars, were also our first encounter with the menace of Islam.

As history records, our unarmed merchant ships were seized, the cargoes looted, and the crews enslaved by Islamic jihadists following the mandates and traditions of Muhammed. This was before the modern state of Israel, before there existed any American foreign policy, before we had a Navy or any overseas military bases, and before the repulsive cultural exports of Britney Spears or hamburger imperialism.

It serves to show that in spite of our best hopes and wishes, reality proves that some peoples maintain ideologies that are antithetical to ours, and in fact seek to destroy us simply because we are us.

Thank you very much for using your PJMedia forum to present an Objectivist influenced perspective. In particular thank you for stating the views of Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute. Their and your viewpoint on foreign policy deserves a wider audience and serious discussion.

Any journalist that believes we killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan is not credible in my book. Bin Laden died from kidney disease that he was being treated for years ago. Dont believe the lies offered to you from the political pustules friend.
War is not healthy for Children and other living things. . .
We are smart people, and should be able to solve our differences in other ways.
The truth in the banking system would be one way in which to start.
Money is the root of all evil, war is just the fruit of the tree that it grows.

The other guys don’t think the way we do. The Islamofascist men ruling Iran are NOT modern men like you, Dwight or I. They are more like non-rational players more akin to pre-modern men of Antiquity. They live in an intensely sacralized world with a strong eschatological sense. Something Objectivists seem to be clueless about. The Islamofascist men ruling Iran are much more like Simon Bar Kokhba or the Sicarii at Massada. Like Simon Bar Kokhba and the Sicarii at Massada they just will not behave in accord with our modern secular sensibilities. Yet far too enough Objectivists and Libertarians insist that risk or lives on the dangerous presumption that the Shaii Twelvers ruling Iran will act like Connecticut Episcopalians.

The other guys don’t think the way we do. The Islamofascist men ruling Iran are NOT modern men like you, Dwight or I. They are more like non-rational players more akin to pre-modern men of Antiquity. They live in an intensely sacralized world with a strong eschatological sense. Something Objectivists seem to be clueless about. The Islamofascist men ruling Iran are much more like Simon Bar Kokhba or the Sicarii at Massada. Like Simon Bar Kokhba and the Sicarii at Massada they just will not behave in accord with our modern secular sensibilities. Yet far too enough Objectivists and Libertarians insist that we ALL risk our lives on the dangerous presumption that the Shaii Twelvers ruling Iran will act no less reasonably than Connecticut Episcopalians!

I would like to challenge the Objectivist view on foreign policy (or at least get some clarification on mine). I would say foreign policy in the Middle East is the only area that I currently disagree with the Objectivist perspective.

You are right that government’s only proper purpose is to protect the rights of individuals and, militarily, “our duty is to protect ourselves, and that means eliminating threats.” It is also an easily recognizable fact that there are thousands of people (and quite a few governments) in the Middle East that openly oppose and even want the death of America and Americans- just YouTube it. These are obvious and real threats. My only question (and my only disagreement with the Objectivist perspective) is- Why?

I believe our military has been consistently used to violate the rights of others. We have used our military since the 1950’s to force people in the Middle East to think and act the way we want them to. And I am working under the assumption that people (however inherently irrational they are in their philosophy) are pissed off at us because of this.

While I don’t agree with him completely on foreign policy, one of the sources cited by Ron Paul that I believe creates a valid point is CPOST (the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism: http://cpost.uchicago.edu/) . It is a database created at the University of Chicago and it has tracked every suicide terrorist attack from 1980 up through today. The head of the database, Robert Pape, then correlated the attacks with occupation in those countries. He found a statistically significant, positive correlation between occupation and terrorist attacks specifically against the country doing the occupying. He gave a summary of the findings both at Duke and on C-SPAN (Duke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM and C-SPAN: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295953-4). The conclusion I draw from this is that animosity and violence against us are created not because people hate our freedom or hate us qua Americans, but because we are occupying their land and using force to make their people think and act the way we want them to… in essence, whether or not they define it as such, we are violating the rights of others and they want this to stop.

Another way to think of it is to imagine it happening to us. If, say, Maryland suddenly were occupied by 50,000 troops and 10,000 tanks from China. Clearly, thousands of Americans (independent of how irrational the individuals are or what ideologies they possess) would be openly pissed and some would even be willing to sacrifice their lives to destroy China. This hatred wouldn’t be due to an American citizen’s “embrace [of] death as a path to salvation” or due to China’s ideology or their level of freedom, it would simply be because they are occupying our land. To use the same Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein quote as the article, “a nation against which force is initiated has a right to kill whomever and to destroy whatever in the aggressor nation [that] is necessary to achieve victory.” Within the context of the Middle East, we are that aggressor nation.

Since I currently accept this view as reasonable and plausible, and given the fact that “our duty is to protect ourselves, and that means eliminating threats” there are two options we have. One is the Patton-like response of complete and utter annihilation of our enemies. I don’t oppose this as an option, but the cost in dollars and American lives would be high and not be necessary ‘if’ the above assumptions are correct. For me, the simpler answer would be to quit occupying those lands (eliminate the root cause of the threat), and, as such, I haven’t agreed with the Objectivist’s view on foreign policy.

I would appreciate any clarification anyone here can give me on my views.

“This alleged responsibility to others is the root of all political evil, the same irrational claim which motivates prescriptions like welfare, progressive taxation, and government-run healthcare.”

The entire premise for this article is based upon the above FALSE statement. Mr. Hudson ask: “Responsible to who?” We have liberty constrained by reality and responsibility to others; “reality” meaning the laws of nature, and “responsibility to others” meaning having a just relationship with others– that is for you to have liberty you must respect the liberty of others.

Earth to Walter, I know what a neo-conservative is, and they aren’t conservative, they are in fact Trotskyites. Marxists who deliberately seek to destroy the republican party from within. Neo-cons are against the US Constitution, they are anti-Christian, they seek to loot the United States for their, and their foreign cronies interests. The fact is, neo-cons despise Rick Santorum, because he is taking a stand for returning the US’s economic independence, national sovereignty, security, and a return to adherence to the US Constitution. Walter is either naive or just spewing propaganda. Santorum supports our troops, he doesn’t believe they should be exploited as they have been. Santorum is pro-defending the sovereignty of the US, he supports protecting the US

The actual neo-cons in the race are Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. I’d initially thought Gingrich had abandoned his neo-con roots, but considering his ties to neo-con, open borders, anti-American sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson, Gingrich isn’t serving the US, but in his pimp Adelson.